Daniel1212:
Whoever put the Decretal Togther is not the issue. The issue is what was put into it. What were the documents, where did they come from. There was no canonical debate going on during the late 5th century so Pope Gelasius and a Council in Rome in 494 did not address the canon. So whoever put the Decretal together, and it contained among other things, a updated translation of the Church Fathers, a list of heretical books, an a canonical List. So, whoever put the Decretal together, lets say it was a Roman Priest who did it and put it under the Pope’s name is not relevant. What was put into it, i.e. the canonical list was not something drawn up in 494, for lists going back to the COuncil of Carthage in 419AD had 46OT and 27NT, which was confirmed by Pope Boniface, Pope Innocents Letter to Bishop Exsurpius in 405 contains the same 46OT and 27NT and Hippo and Carthage in 393 and 397, along with Saint Augustine’s listing in Christian Doctrine had a list, and of course the Council of Rome in 382 would, in that time, be dealing with the canon as it was under debate full force at that time. Damasus, in directing Jerome to do a Vulgate Translation of the Bible directed him of course to follow the Tradition of the Church and given that Jerome conceded to translating the 46OT and 27NT canon, Damasus at the Council of Rome putting together a Canonical List is legitimate.
Fr. Jurgen’s is only impugned among Protestants. That is polemical BS. I have read P. Scaff’s translation of the Fathers and his commentary, he downplays anything that hints a Catholic, because he is Reformed. Should I impugn his integrity are just realize that his ex ante Reformed theology shapes how he writes things in his translations of the Fathers.
Pope Gregory may have personally thought 1 Mac was non-canonical, yet he never ordered it out of the Catholic Canon. In this case, this was his personal theological opinion, but he did not impose his personal view against the constant tradition that came before him. Popes can and do have personal theological opinions, but they also are bound to defend and protect the faith. Gregory was a Great Pope and while I am aware of his views, what you will not see is Gregory calling a council to reexamine the Canon. The reason is, it did not happen. The canon during Gregory the Great’s time was the canon of Pope Boniface (419), Innocent I [405] time and Damasus in 382.
As for Saint Augustine, when you say “apologist” you are referring to Lay Catholics who go to Protestant “internet theologians [apologist} to use your word] and argue. No Catholic Scholar denies Saint Augustine’s theology, what they do reject is Reformed misuse of it. The Eastern Orthodox do however, believe that Augustine’s theology is to much the dominate thought in Catholic theology, but the Catholic Church has always viewed Augustine as one of the 4 Great Doctors of the Church in the Roman-Latin Tradition.
As for Bruce, whom you site, that is his opinion, although it is purely conjecture. Fr. Jurgen’s takes the opposite view and I think his arguments are much more solid given the sources he sites, the canons from the Council of Constantinople and the Synod Opening Letter speak of a Council in Rome under Damasus and “Tome from the Western Church” Phillip Scaff, who I think is much more cited as a Protestant Church History and Patristic Scholar compared to Bruce [who I admit, I know nothing about], has a detailed Introductory on the Council of Constantinople and he concludes that the Tome mentioned was indeed from Pope Damasus from around 380. The Decrees, which were part of the Tome, are attached to it, are in historical context, dealing with issues in the 4th century, not the early 6th.
And again, you are repeating Von Dobschutz’s arguments, which hing on a quote from Saint Augustine to argue that everything in it most be after that date. That is faulty as it could also mean that the Decretal added works from after the time of Damasus into one work.
As to murderous gang? Are you saying Pope Damasus was killer, Was Pope Innocent, Boniface, Leo the Great? I really am not sure what you are doing with this so I am just going to leave it alone.
Indeed, and while you spend a lot of space on this, the fact remains that this canon certainly did not have the unanimous consent of the father, or settle it.
Damasus, in directing Jerome to do a Vulgate Translation of the Bible directed him of course to follow the Tradition of the Church and given that Jerome conceded to translating the 46OT and 27NT canon,
Compelled is the word, going against his own judgment, and the judgment of other men of great weight. You are preoccupied with showing the antiquity of the Tridentine canon but you are missing the point, which is that the Prot canon also has antiquity, and what Rome decrees as true does not make it true. She has provided ample evidence for her lack of credibility. And if Prots are to be condemned for holding to the old 22 Hebrew book canon, then you must condemn revered Catholic men of old as well, among which is..
Epiphanius of Salamis (310–320 – 403), bishop of Salamis, wrote, "There are twenty-seven books given the Jews by God. They are counted AS TWENTY-TWO, however, like the letters of their Hebrew alphabet, because ten books which the Jews reckon as five are double." (The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, Nag Hammadi Studies, edited by Martin Krause, James Robinson, Frederik Wisse (Leiden; Brill), 187)
Gregory of Nazianzus (329[1] – 25 January 389 or 390) 4th-century Archbishop of Constantinople, "Receive the number and names of the holy books ... These TWENTY-TWO books of the Old Testament are counted according to the twenty-two letters of the Jews." (Dogmatica Carmina, Book I, Section I, Carmen XII, PG 37:471-474)
Hilary of Poitiers (300 –368), Bishop of Poitiers, stated, The Law of the Old Testament is reckoned IN TWENTY-TWO BOOKS, that they might fit the number of Hebrew letters. They are counted according TO THE TRADITION OF THE ANCIENT FATHERS. (Commentary on the Psalms, Prologue, Dr. Michael Woodward, Translator)
Cyril of Jerusalem (313 – 386), distinguished theologian of the early Church: "Now these the divinely-inspired Scriptures of both the Old and New Testament teach us ... Read the Divine Scriptures, the twenty-two books of the old testament, these that have been translated by the seventy-two interpreters. (Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers 2, Vol. 7, Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures IV.33-36)
Basil of Caesarea, Basil the Great, (329 or 330 – January 1, 379), "Why 22 divinely inspired books? I respond that in place of numbers ... For it should not be ignored that the 22 books of the Jews handed down, which correspond to the number of Hebrew letters, are not without reason 22. Just as the 22 letters are the introduction to wisdom, etc. so too the 22 books of Scripture are the foundation and introduction to the wisdom of God and the knowledge of things." (Philocalia, c. 3, edition of Paris 1618, p. 63)
Fr. Jurgen’s is only impugned among Protestants. That is polemical BS.
That is not true if it has been shown, and for that you would have engage those who examine his use of texts and find fault with them. Thus the links.
Pope Gregory may have personally thought 1 Mac was non-canonical, yet he never ordered it out of the Catholic Canon. In this case, this was his personal theological opinion,
Rather, he did not express it as his personal theological opinion, but as being the canon of the church. Jurgens affirms that Gregory wrote his commentary while he was pope. It is hardly tenable to think he would even express a personal opinion contrary to a settled canon/
And in later testimony to the degree the canon was not settled, just before the Reformation you have Cardinal Ximenes, Archbishop of Toledo, who in collaboration with the leading theologians of his day, produced an edition of the Bible called the Biblia Complutensia. In the Preface, he states in regard to the Apocrypha, that the books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, the Maccabees, the additions to Esther and Daniel, are not canonical Scripture and were therefore not used by the Church for confirming the authority of any fundamental points of doctrine. He does say that the Church allowed them to be read for purposes of edification. Both the Bible and its Preface had the official consent and authority of Pope Leo X, to whom the whole work was dedicated.
The New Catholic Encyclopedia acknowledges:
"The first Bible which may be considered a Polyglot is that edited at Alcala (in Latin Complutum, hence the name Complutensian Bible), Spain, in 1517, under the supervision and at the expense of Cardinal Ximenes, by scholars of the university founded in that city by the same great Cardinal. It was published in 1520, with the sanction of Leo X. Ximenes wished, he writes, ‘to revive the languishing study of the Sacred Scriptures. (http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Saifullah/bravo7.htm)
As for Saint Augustine, when you say “apologist” you are referring to Lay Catholics who go to Protestant “internet theologians [apologist} to use your word] and argue. No Catholic Scholar denies Saint Augustine’s theology, what they do reject is Reformed misuse of it. The Eastern Orthodox do however, believe that Augustine’s theology is to much the dominate thought in Catholic theology..
Those Lay Catholics would be offended that another lay RC reproved them, but my mention of RCs rejecting Augustine was an aside. I would let GPH get into the Augustine issue.
As for Bruce, whom you site, that is his opinion, although it is purely conjecture....you are repeating Von Dobschutz’s arguments, which hing on a quote from Saint Augustine
Perhaps i can look into that more, but again what the Council of Rome may have did does not change the fact that the canon was not really settled until Trent, "That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent." (New Catholic Encyclopedia, Catholic University of America , 2003, Vol. 3, p 26 .
As to murderous gang? Are you saying Pope Damasus was killer, Was Pope Innocent, Boniface, Leo the Great? I really am not sure what you are doing with this so I am just going to leave it alone.
That relates to the fundamental issue my 7 points in my post that you ignored here were about, and that makes this whole issue of a settled canon relevant.